Case: 23-50224 Document: 207-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2024
`
`No. 23-50224
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Fifth Circuit
`
`LEILA GREEN LITTLE; JEANNE PURYEAR; KATHY KENNEDY;
`REBECCA JONES; RICHARD DAY; CYNTHIA WARING; DIANE
`MOSTER,
`
`Plaintiffs-Appellees,
`
`v.
`
`LLANO COUNTY; RON CUNNINGHAM, in his official capacity as
`Llano County Judge; JERRY DON MOSS, in his official capacity
`as Llano County Commissioner; PETER JONES, in his official
`capacity as Llano County Commissioner; MIKE SANDOVAL, in his
`official capacity as Llano County Commissioner; LINDA
`RASCHKE, in her official capacity as Llano County
`Commissioner; AMBER MILUM, in her official capacity as Llano
`County Library System Director; BONNIE WALLACE, in her
`official capacity as Llano County Library Board Member;
`ROCHELLE WELLS, in her official capacity as Llano County
`Library Board Member; RHODA SCHNEIDER, in her official
`capacity Llano County Library Board Member; GAY BASKIN, in
`her official capacity as Llano County Library Board Member,
`Defendants-Appellants.
`
`
`
`On Appeal from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas
`No. 1:22-cv-424-RP
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-
`APPELLANTS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 207-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2024
`
`
`
`Amici the States of Florida, Texas, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho,
`
`Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
`
`Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia
`
`request leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of defendants-
`
`appellants, according to this Court’s practice for en banc proceedings.
`
`
`
`The Amici States are deeply interested in the legal standards
`
`applied by courts for reviewing the library-curation decisions of states
`
`and state subdivisions. The question presented in this case—whether a
`
`county library violated its patrons’ First Amendment rights by removing
`
`books from its shelves—directly affects that interest.
`
`A “government speaks through its selection of which books to put
`
`on [public-library] shelves and which books to exclude.” People for the
`
`Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Gittens, 414 F.3d 23, 28 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
`
`And when the government speaks, it may choose its own message. See,
`
`e.g., Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467–68 (2009)
`
`(explaining “[t]he Free Speech Clause . . . does not regulate government
`
`speech”)); see also Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515
`
`U.S. 819, 833 (1995).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 207-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/09/2024
`
`But, in this case, the district court held that plaintiffs-appellees
`
`were likely to succeed on their claims because “[a]lthough libraries are
`
`afforded great discretion for their selection and acquisition decisions, the
`
`First Amendment prohibits the removal of books from libraries based on
`
`either viewpoint or content discrimination.” ROA.3523 (citing Bd. of
`
`Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 871 (1982) (plurality opinion)). The en banc
`
`Court will decide whether the district court applied the correct legal
`
`standard.
`
`Because this is “a hot-button issue,” Little v. Llano Cnty., 103 F.4th
`
`1140, 1146 (5th Cir. 2024), with similar cases already pending in the
`
`Eighth Circuit and the Northern District of Florida, see, e.g., GLBT Youth
`
`in Iowa Sch. Task Force v. Reynolds, No. 24-1075 (8th Cir. 2024); Parnell
`
`v. Sch. Bd. of Lake Cnty., No. 4:23-cv-414, 2024 WL 2703762, at *1 (N.D.
`
`Fla. Apr. 25, 2024), the Amici States seek to file this amicus brief to
`
`explain why the district court’s decision conflicts with Supreme Court
`
`jurisprudence regarding government speech.
`
`For these reasons, the Amici States request leave to file an amicus
`
`brief in support of defendants-appellants. The proposed brief has been
`
`filed concurrently.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 207-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/09/2024
`
`
`
`The Amici States respectfully request leave to file an amicus brief
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`in support of defendants-appellants.
`
`Dated: August 9, 2024
`
`KEN PAXTON
` Attorney General of Texas
`
`BRENT WEBSTER
` First Assistant Attorney
`General
`
`/s/ Aaron L. Nielson
`AARON L. NIELSON
` Solicitor General
`LANORA C. PETTIT
` Principal Deputy Solicitor
` General
`
`Texas Attorney General’s Office
`P.O. Box 12548 (MC 059)
`Austin, TX 78711-2548
`(512) 936-1700
`aaron.nielson@oag.texas.gov
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae State
`of Texas
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`ASHLEY MOODY
` Attorney General of Florida
`
`/s/ Henry C. Whitaker
`HENRY C. WHITAKER
`Solicitor General
`NATHAN A. FORRESTER
`Senior Deputy Solicitor General
` BRIDGET K. O’HICKEY
`Assistant Solicitor General
`
`
`
`
`
`Florida Attorney General’s Office
`The Capitol, PL-01
`Tallahassee, Florida 32399
`(850) 414-3300
`henry.whitaker@myfloridalegal.com
`
`Counsel for Amicus Curiae State of
`Florida
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 207-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/09/2024
`
`Additional Counsel:
`
`Treg Taylor
`Attorney General of Alaska
`
`Tim Griffin
`Attorney General of Arkansas
`
`Raúl R. Labrador
`Attorney General of Idaho
`
`Theodore E. Rokita
`Attorney General of Indiana
`
`Brenna Bird
`Attorney General of Iowa
`
`Kris W. Kobach
`Attorney General of Kansas
`
`Liz Murrill
`Attorney General of Louisiana
`
`Lynn Fitch
`Attorney General of Mississippi
`
`Andrew Bailey
`Attorney General of Missouri
`
`Austin Knudsen
`Attorney General of Montana
`
`Michael T. Hilgers
`Attorney General of Nebraska
`
`Drew Wrigley
`Attorney General of North Dakota
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 207-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/09/2024
`
`Dave Yost
`Attorney General of Ohio
`
`Alan Wilson
`Attorney General of South Carolina
`
`Sean Reyes
`Attorney General of Utah
`
`Patrick Morrisey
`Attorney General of West Virginia
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 23-50224 Document: 207-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/09/2024
`
`Certificate of Conference
`
`On August 7, 2024, counsel for Amici conferred with counsel for
`
`defendants-appellants and plaintiffs-appellees. This motion
`
`is
`
`unopposed.
`
`
`/s/ Henry C. Whitaker
`Henry C. Whitaker
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`On August 9, 2024, this motion was served via CM/ECF on all
`
`registered counsel and transmitted to the Clerk of the Court. Counsel
`
`further certifies that: (1) any required privacy redactions have been made
`
`in compliance with Fifth Circuit Rule 25.2.13 and (2) the electronic
`
`submission is an exact copy of the paper document in compliance with
`
`Fifth Circuit Rule 25.2.1.
`
`
`/s/ Henry C. Whitaker
`Henry C. Whitaker
`
`Certificate of Compliance
`
`This motion complies with: (1) the type-volume limitation of Federal
`
`Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(2)(A) because it contains 392 words,
`
`excluding exempted text; and (2) the typeface requirements of Rule
`
`32(a)(5) and the type-style requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because it has
`
`been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface (14-point Century
`
`Schoolbook) using Microsoft Word.
`
`/s/ Henry C. Whitaker
`Henry C. Whitaker
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

We are unable to display this document.

HTTP Error 400: Found

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket